10 March 2010

by Frank TurkSo from the list of Redneck Atheist complaints, we have this interesting affirmation:

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

Some posts write themselves.

Listen: it turns out that Christianity actually appeals to "history, geology, biology and physics". That is: the simple claim of the Gospel is that something actually happened which a person ought to be aware of and take note of.

This is how John the Apostle says it:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us -- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. [ESV, 1 John 1]

No tongues there -- no "Holy Spirit Hokey Pokey". Simply Jesus as a real person making God known, and witnesses making what they saw and touched and heard known.

Anything else I would say would be piling on. Which, really, is what the comments are for.

There is, behind the objection, an underlying certainty. "No amount of evidence, miracles, 'word from God', anything at all will convince us that there is a God." I've heard atheists argue "If God wanted to prove His existence, He could do so easily with evidence or action." It's simply not true. History has affirmed that people will disregard the plain evidence and continue their skepticism. (One of the most obvious biblical examples is the story of the raising of Lazarus which resulted not in believers convinced by the miracle, but assassins bent on killing both the miracle worker and the evidence of the miracle.)

There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.

The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side.

The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.'

But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'

And the Rich man said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'

But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'

And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'

And Abraham said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'

It is apparently not in God's will to prove himself unambiguously to the world at large. However, there is enought evidence to condemn the most ignorant or the most brilliant individual who denies him (Romans 1).

God is excellent at proving to a person, unquestionably, that he exists. I know - in freshman year at college, as an athiest I challenged him if he was there to prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he existed. Nine months later, I was born again.

Well said Frank, but there is an underlying irony in the "commandment" which is left unquestioned by the atheist rednecks who propogate it. The unquestioned premise is that the atheist's experience and understanding of science, biology, etc. is superior to the pentacostal's understanding and experience of spiritual things. After all, nobody ever starts rolling around on the floor and spouting the metric tensor. Not only is this apples to oranges, but it presumes the implied outcome from the getgo - no reason is given as to why the atheist's means of persuation might be superior. Really, this list is no better thought out than some dude rolling on the carpet barking like a dog.

I agree, and think that this is a balanced and sane response to a fairly silly accusation against Christians.

However, the fact is Christianity is not supposed to just be about something that happened, but about something that is happening now. The death and resurrection of Christ are essentially meaningless if there is not a tangible effect in the present, if Jesus cannot be said to be in some way really present among his people.

So it's not unreasonable, I think, for Christians to be looking for something more than historical arguments to prove that Christianity is real, that it "works." Should a vaguely-defined ecstatic experience constitute that proof? Probably not. But what does?

Christ is not dying for our sins now, nor is he fixin' to raise from the dead.

I really have a vast veldt of sympathy for what you are saying as I think if Christ's work is only past and not present it's a curiousity, not Good News, but the "proof" (a la Rom 1:1-7, or 1 john 1 as in this post) is the real Christ who did what God promised He would do. Christ's resurrection is the bond for the rest.

It's funny -- I have Adrian Warnock's new book in my stack of stuff I have to do something public about, and I agree with everything he says there except his stuff about how the resurrection is proof that "daGifts" carry over to today.

I prefer Francis Chan's view of how the spirit living in the believer is manifest -- that the renovated life and the renovated conscience is plenty supernatural to speak to the reality of a transcendent God.

Mark Hansen nailed it. Who says God wants to unambiguously prove his existence to those who are striving to hate him? After all, Faith is the evidence of things not seen. There's that word, EVIDENCE. It's there - or it wouldn't be evidence; but, will we allow ourselves to see it?

Aside from faith: Will we see the evidence of incredible handiwork and unimaginable complexity in life that works like a symphony? Or, will we instead dream up theories to explain away the incredible as being a mere accident of nature?

I love this series on Redneck Atheism! It was a painful experience when I first read that Top 10 list. The way they present their objections sort of puts you on the defensive immediately. I've really enjoyed the process of calming down, looking carefully at each objection, and analyzing it. It is so encouraging to me to see how silly these arguments really are.

I wasn't saved by comparing every scientific and historical fact I could find to the Bible, but it definitely increases my faith to know that the Bible does not contradict biology (the real observable kind, not house-of-cards evolution), history, chemistry, or physics.

The commenter does bring up an interesting point. How are we do defend orthodox Christianity when we do not speak out against such nonsense as we from televangelist and the like who make people roll around on the floor acting silly?

One of the great spiritual blessings of having children is the way it consigns you to an entire lifetime of answering "Why, Mommy?"

And we sometimes laugh at the cliche that the answer to every Sunday School question is always "God" or "Jesus".

But I'm learning that that really is the answer, even in subjects like physics and biology and history. Jesus is the one who holds everything together by the word of His power. He makes redwood trees grow up and up and up for a reason. He makes gravity for a reason. And the reason is always to reveal Him.

"While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity."

Any fallacious objection coming from any unbeliever (atheist or other) is a perfectly open door for presenting Christ crucified and risen, according to the Scriptures, in all His true glory.

I'm glad the series is edifying, but I have to be honest: giving unbelievers an open door for their next 10 objections does two things for which I have not much energy:

1. It tacitly says that there are many, many valid objections to the faith when, let's face it, there are not that many. There may actually be ZERO valid objections to the faith -- just many, many people who have a Romans 1 problem.

2. It relinquishes the playing field of reasonable dialog. Let me explain that so you can see what I'm saying.

Dialog: (Etymology) Middle English dialoge, from Anglo-French dialogue, from Latin dialogus, from Greek dialogos, from dialegesthai to converse, from dia- + legein to speak. (thx, m-w.com)

It's where two or more people are speaking to each other; it results in an exchange of ideas. Another way two or more people can interact is an interrogation, in which it is assumed that one side inherently has the upper hand and the other side is inherently in possession of incriminating facts or evidence.

When we allow the "other side" to only ask question, endlessly ask, ask, ask, we have tacitly allowed what could have been a "dialog" to become an "interrogation". And in that, we have assumed the mantle of the accused or the guilty.

If the atheist is an honest person, they have to admit something: if the Christian has a responsibility to answer questions about what he believes, the atheist has the same responsibility if what is occurring is anything resembling scientific or rational discourse.

The atheist will tell you, "well, you have the burden of proof since you are making the affirmative claim." However, that's just shifty reasoning.

Can it really be said that the atheist is making no affirmative claim? I think that's complete hogwash -- of course he's making at least one affirmative claim: existentially, the universe makes more sense when explained without God as a cause than when we accept God as an explanation for any cause. And the problem for the atheist is that "atheism" is not reasonable in the least. In fact, there are brands of "atheism" which take great pride in the fact that it makes no sense which therefore somehow proves that it is the right perception of reality.

This from a clan for whom Physics and Chemistry are of great value.

So let's be careful when we are inviting the atheist to "bring it on". If he's going to bring something on, let him bring his affirmations to the table and not just his denials of our cosmology and metaphysics.

I think you nailed the problem I’ve had witnessing to atheists at the university. I feel the need to answer every ridiculous question they throw at me to try to convince them to be a Christian. Not possible. The Holy Spirit convicted me and He’ll have to do the same for them.

I have been getting into more of an interrogation (as you put it) than a conversation. Nothing seems to get accomplished, the atheists seemed to get more and more obnoxious, I feel frustrated and stupid, and worse…no one gets saved!

Someone brought this up to me in a thread before (I think it was Joel?): He suggested I look up Ray Comfort to see how he witnessed to atheists. I did, and Ray witnesses to them the same way he witnesses to everyone else: He bypasses the intellectual (the endless argument-center) and goes straight to the conscience. In the WOTM episodes I saw where he did this, it seemed to work. At least it kept the conversation civil and respectful. And it allowed Ray to proclaim the Gospel to them which is what I’m dying to do!

Let's make sure that as we implement WOTM, we make sure we don't just focus on the need for the savior. let's also make sure we extoll the beauty and compassion of the savior -- because the Gospel is what Christ did for sinners -- not what sinner can do for Christ.

"let's also make sure we extoll the beauty and compassion of the savior -- because the Gospel is what Christ did for sinners -- not what sinner can do for Christ."

Oh, AMEN to that!

Misty, praise God for your zeal for seeing the lost at university come to Christ. Speaking just from my husband's and my experience, atheist and agnostic intellectuals, more than just garden variety atheists, can spot a "formulaic" approach to evangelism a mile away, and will more often than not shred you. But, the more you come to know Jesus truly and personally in your own life, and that informs how you see the people in your life with all their external arguments but deep, internal, universal idols, the more Jesus will help you show Him as He really is to them.

God grant you strength, but do remember that even with the "best" witnessing, it's ultimately the Holy Spirit that will prick the conscience of your hearers. It is not your responsibility to find a method or technique that will convince your hearers or win them over with a compelling approach—it's not a sales pitch or an intellectual proposition—but rather simply to proclaim Christ and Him crucified, and leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict the lost and bring them to repentance.

We shouldn't necessarily judge methods of evangelism on their effectiveness, but on how authentic their Gospel proclamation is (and WOTM has that covered, and the sermons in Acts are excellent models), and the silent witness of how we live out what we claim to believe. And leaving all that aside, the Biblical evidence suggests that God often delights in using imperfect or implausible means to achieve His ends (Balaam's donkey, the falling of Jericho, or fallible Peter, for example).

There are great missionaries in the history of the Church who laboured for years before seeing a single conversion...but ultimately, their labours bore fruit one way or another, and not because of their work, but the work of the Holy Spirit in which they were active participants.

In the end, what WOTM touches on is what the Bible deals with a significant amount of time, and why Jesus Christ came into the world: to solve the problem of sin. Any means of communicating the Gospel that leaves this out—and it usually is left out, like the elephant in the room!—is an incomplete Gospel.

The whole comment at 11:47A was great but I'm just wondering something. You say If the atheist is an honest person, they have to admit something: if the Christian has a responsibility to answer questions about what he believes, the atheist has the same responsibility if what is occurring is anything resembling scientific or rational discourse. As such, what is the logical starting point in setting parameters in a discussion of this kind especially when postmodern thought has a tendency to deny absolutes? Do we begin with epistomology?

More unorthodox means that God has used to achieve His purposes*: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba—not to mention the likes of Judah, David, and Solomon!—all ancestors of Jesus Christ, and all examples of people like you and me, sinners whom Jesus Christ came to save.

*And His ultimate purpose is to glorify His Name by redeeming a people unto Himself, but this you can leave out of your evangelistic testimony, unless your interlocutor takes the dialog in a particularly fruitful direction.

Okay, I’m definitely printing these comments out and posting them on my wall. Very encouraging! Thank you!

What I think you all are saying (and I have found this to be true in witnessing), is that motive is key. If my motive is to try to save everyone I come across, I will be facing much disappointment. And that isn’t even my job. It’s sheer arrogance to think I can save anyone with my weak little strategies. Jesus is the Savior, God calls, the Spirit convicts and gives life. I am there to proclaim. I think it’s as simple as that. When I focus on proclaiming the wonders of our Lord, His holiness and righteousness, His incredible kindness and mercy…that’s when I really enjoy witnessing regardless of the response I get. I love talking about God first (like Paul did with the Athenians in Acts 17) and who He is because people don’t really know Him. Then talking about our rebellion against Him, our sinfulness, and then finally getting to (if they let me) the great dilemma in Romans 3: How can God be just and yet justify the wicked? Jesus Christ our Lord is the answer!

You can't make the atheist do anything, really. But you can understand what he's doing and simply not participate in his antics.

There's a somewhat-notorious video of Kirk Cameron (we respect Kirk's work and passion) getting shreaded on the question of evolution on a college campus. The problem there is that the discussion got derailed from the problem "man cannot save himself from his own wisdom (or lack thereof)" to the topic "evolution is essential to any rational cosmology."

We have to remember that if the atheist wants to have that discussion, we should let him -- because it's a very short walk to a dead end for him there. You can easily, and with no confrontational language, get any naturalist to admit that evolution happens, and the outcomes are utterly value-free. Once they have done this, their metaphysical choices are limited. The limits of those choices point straight at the Gospel.

You just have to listen and be patient. See: WOTM "works" not because bullying is a great strategy. It works because the objectives of the discussion are clear to the evangelist. You can have that exact same discussion in a significantly-less confrontational way with someone and get the same results.

I think I have more to say about this. It may turn into a blog post. Or three.

Yeah, Okay...I see what you're saying Frank. I was a little taken aback with that particular part of your comment because I've actually had a hard time in those types of conversations. The topic almost always bounces around like a pinball caught between bumpers. It's so hard to get a concrete set of parameters. Just a few days ago one adversary broke into a treatise on the Ottoman empire and left me wondering "where did that come from"! I don't believe that to be "honest" discussion. I would move from doctrinal stance to doctrinal stance with him only for him to quickly abandon ship when his reasoning became convoluted.

Personally, I like the way WOTM does it because they always seem to control the parameters.

I've had similar concerns. I've had discussions about how their claim that it is the only way to evangelize is very weak. I've also seen them lean on the ten commandments like a crutch, unnecessarily so. I've asked them if they keep all ten commandments (because most of us Protestants no longer keep the Sabbath.). But I do like their method for the most part and their zeal, so I usually keep my minor objections to myself.

WOTM is just one evangelistic tool. That's the key thing to remember. Most professing (American at least)Christians go to their graves without having shared the gospel with one person. And I think WOTM is a tool that equips saints on how to share the gospel.

I know that it seems confrontational, I personally don't use it anymore, but there is more to WOTM than the 10 commandments. When I would go with my pastor sometimes to evangelize, I saw him use that method (it's not the only one uses) and one could use it without being in your face.

You may be more comfortable with Evangelism Explosion (EE) (use the classic version, the new version is not that good).

Two Ways To Live is also a VERY GOOD gospel evangelism presentation.

Two Ways To Live does not unfortunately have a OJT program, but EE does. If you're uncomfortable with WOTM, I would recommend you and your husband investing in EE and taking new believers you are discipling in your church out and showing them how to share the gospel.

LOL. Sadly, regrettably, mercy is most definitely not my gift. I'm an exhorter with a need to be more gracious and merciful in my exhorting (thus why I participate in blogs - it's good practice).

So I'm not at all squeamish at looking someone in the eye and calling them to repentance of their sin. The heart of my struggle with programs like WOTM is the direction from which that call comes, and the one making it.

WOTM is very big on doing evangelism "the way Jesus did it". And that's of course an excellent motive. But the challenge for me is that there is a big difference when Jesus says something to someone about their sin, and when I say something about their sin.

Jesus has never been a recipient of mercy, forgiveness, propitiation on His own behalf.

He is the offerer, the provider of all those things, and I am the forever blessed recipient, because of who Jesus is- God, very God.

For all of its (laudable) intent not to be man-centered, I still find it to be very horizontally oriented - you are a sinner, God wants you to repent of your sins and trust in Jesus, you will be forgiven. Starts with man, ends with man.

But, start with Jesus - that He's who He said He was - that makes everything He said authoritative, including what he says about sin and our need for forgiveness. Oh, and BTW, He talks a lot about the weary finding rest in Him, the hopeless finding joy in Him, the dead finding life in Him. I don't hear that side so much either in the WOTM.

And as I was saying to someone yesterday, you can talk about Jesus with even the most hardened atheist. Only the really "out there" will deny his historical existence. And, beyond that, we know from Scripture that every person is a worshipper of something other than the one true God. Money, sex, approval, power. And (here's the kicker), if we're in their life for any amount of time, putting up with their insults, relentlessly testifying to the hope we have in Jesus rather than those other things, sometimes, by the grace of God, one of their idols gets smashed to smithereens and we'll be there to help sweep up the mess, hold them while they weep, and lovingly ask "So, that idol you were trusting in? How's that working out for you? Did you know that right now God is showing His love for you by taking away a thing that will never bring you joy because He wants you to look to Someone who will?"

That takes a lot more time and effort than going up to a stranger and asking them if they've ever told a lie. :)

Turk said "We have to remember that if the atheist wants to have that discussion, we should let him -- because it's a very short walk to a dead end for him there. You can easily, and with no confrontational language, get any naturalist to admit that evolution happens, and the outcomes are utterly value-free. Once they have done this, their metaphysical choices are limited. The limits of those choices point straight at the Gospel."

Yes, and more than that. The Bible, indeed our faith, is inextricably entangled with actual history. All the theological writings of the religions of the world may point to a moment in history or read more as a set of assertions which have no real foundation. But every bit of sure Christian theology is founded on the historical accounts.

Much philosophy tries to imitate with the historical development of schools of thought, but there is no historical foundation for the base assertions. Shamans make assertions found in mystical traditions. Eastern religions compensate by philosophies of personal discovery as opposed to absolute truth. Other religions have a founder who made unsupported claims to prophecy.

But Christ didn't make such assertions. He didn't say anything that changed what was revealed in the Hebrew scriptures. He may not have agreed with rabbinical teachings, but he brought light to the intended meaning of the scriptures ultimately fulfilling his purpose in redemption, which is indeed the focus of all scripture. You just can't make this stuff up.

As an example, when I was sharing with a Buddhist wanna be who came to our church (Dali Lama book in hand), I started to share the Creator/creation distinction with him which not surprisingly he objected to immediately (since he was a pantheist/atheist).

I simply shared that you may not believe what I do, but this is what Christianity believes and continued on and therefore completely shared the entire gospel of grace with him. He listened intently with the book still in his hand asking questions on the white board with me.

It is God the Holy Spirit's work to do the converting here not mine.

This is why for every wayward Westerner becoming a Buddhist, their are thousands of Buddhists becoming Christians (Shall I say Chinese Church?). We have grace, hope, and forgiveness. They have only ethics and denial.

Frank said, "I prefer Francis Chan's view of how the spirit living in the believer is manifest -- that the renovated life and the renovated conscience is plenty supernatural to speak to the reality of a transcendent God."

I think God agrees with the dear brother:http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2010/03/divine-miracles.html

Rachael, I do not know who you have had contact with or what you have heard so all I have to go on is what I have seen and heard and I can tell you the two do not seem to be in agreement.

I have read several of Ray's books, listened to his two foundational messages and attended one of their Ambassador's Academy. I know this does not qualify me as an expert in all things WOTM, but I will say is "what I have seen and read does not totally square with the picture you are painting here".

Yes, WOTM claims to do evangelism "the way Jesus did it" as you put it. However, that is based on Jesus practice of "law to the proud and grace to the humble" , if anything else, I am not aware of.

I have not read anything or heard anyone speak associated with WOTM that would indicate that God in not fully sovereign in the realm of salvation. The fact that Ray seems to have a clear and ever present vision of the realities of what awaits the lost and the implausibility that we, knowing what awaits the unrepentant sinner, and, having been instructed to be Christ's ambassadors, would not but warn him of the wrath to come may seem man-centered. I don't see it that way based on what I have seen and heard.

Starting with Jesus would be an appeal to the intellect, which WOTM tries to avoid, instead using the Law to arouse his conscience so that it might accuse him. Once convinced of his illness, he will desire the cure, Jesus. You spoke of not hearing much about "the weary finding rest in Him," well, that is right after He thanks the Father that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and understanding, so, we don't usually share that either!

WOTM, also instructs you to use acts of kindness and service in interacting with family, friends and neighbors with the intention of sharing the hope that lies within you as opportunity arises. A very different approach than what is used with strangers. I hope you were kidding about the "going up to a stranger and asking them if they've ever told a lie". You do go up to strangers, you do ask them if they've ever told a lie, but only to verify their contention that they are a good person. That is not how the conversation is started.

I have been involved with several different evangelism programs of one form or another for many years through the local church. Since I am by nature an introvert, I need the crutch of a method, to get the ball rolling and keep it rolling. To me, this is the best of the method's I've encountered in my experience. Is it the only method? No! Is it infallible? No! Do I agree with all things Ray Comfort/WOTM? No! Since I've been put on notice I can't agree to disagree, LOL , I felt compelled to respond. What you have encountered my well be what you represented, what you represented is not what I've encountered with WOTM.

I would implore you to share Jesus anyway you feel comfortable, for that is the way we will share, which is the idea anyway.

The Rules

PREMISE: DO NOT comment at all if you think the "right way" to handle Christian disagreement is to make an appointment and chat over coffee first. The vortex of irony you will create by commenting will sap the hair-care products off your stylish bed-head, and we do not want to be responsible for that.

Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.

See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.

If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.

Followers

Stats Attack!

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always.